F-35 price tag holding steady..........

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 13,433

Well, the Raptor is going for $133 Million and only "183" are currently projected! So, considering the F-35 was designed with economy in mind and it will be constructed in the thousands! I have seen nothing that gives credence to such an outlandish claim...........So, as its stands today the Lightning should be very competitive! While, being far more capable....:diablo:

The APUC of the F-22 is running about $175 million. $133 million is for a bare "flyaway" aircraft. I'm not sure if it's fully-equipped.

Profile picture for user Sintra

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,765

I would love to see the original document that Reuters used to write the story.
So, the USAF just released a document with completely diferent numbers from it´s official budget from February 2008...
Right, and my name his Napoleon...

2009 Budget
http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/7177/f35gl1.jpg
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf

2008 Budget
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9678/f34aj1.jpg
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070212-004.pdf

2006 Budget
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/2281/f33ml3.jpg
http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070214-050.pdf

Strange, i would be expecting such a "document" would appear in some specialized press, like "AW", or "Flight Global", but "Reuters"?!!!!

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 13,433

We're talking different price bases here. The "to completion" cost, after low-rate initial production, of $80 mn flyaway, is in "then-year" dollars, & includes a forecast future inflation rate. Therefore, if you buy more early on & few late on, that price is lower than if you buy few early on & more late on. I think that's a silly notion, & it would be better to use constant-price numbers.

BTW, this is the F-35A. The F-35B & C will be more expensive.

Profile picture for user Sintra

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,765

Well, the Raptor is going for $133 Million and only "183" are currently projected! So, considering the F-35 was designed with economy in mind and it will be constructed in the thousands! I have seen nothing that gives credence to such an outlandish claim...........So, as its stands today the Lightning should be very competitive! While, being far more capable....:diablo:

133 million?
Here you go, the exact numbers:
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8559/f22la1.jpg

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf (page 55)

Cheers :)

I think what also has to be taken into consideration is that the overall costs are for the project, and the project is essentially made up of 3 different aircraft with some commonality.
Those airframes then have to go through some common but lots of individual testing and certification.

Given that, to then break the overall costs down to $70m a unit isn't actually that bad.

Especially if compared with the costs of 3 separate designs for the differing roles.

Really, in todays market $100 Million would not be unreasonable! Especially, considering the Super Hornet is going for 95-105 Million (depending on model) and ~$133 Million for the Raptor.

Also, regardless of the speculation of the number of F-35 likely to be sold in the near-term. The odds are very much in the favor of the Lightning for the long-term. As the fighter market over the next couple of decades is going to be huge to say the least. With vast fleets of F-16's, F/A-18's, Mirage 2000's, Mig-29's, A-10's, AV-8's, etc. etc. Which, the F-35 will pretty much have to itself! This is clear to everyone as most 4th Generation Types are out of produduction or very close. Further, with the minor exception to the Typhoon current 4.5 Generation Fighters are near a stand still for export orders. As most are waiting on the F-35!:D :D

In short the future of the F-35 Lightning II looks very good..............seems like a good time to go buy LM, BAE, and Northrup Grumman Stock!:rolleyes:

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 13,433

$136.8 million, eh? Or $170.8 million for something usable. :D

BTW, the inflation rates assumed in those budget forecasts are here.

Table 10.1, "Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2013".

I think that after 2013 they assume a constant modest inflation rate.

Profile picture for user Sintra

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,765

We're talking different price bases here. The "to completion" cost, after low-rate initial production, of $80 mn flyaway, is in "then-year" dollars, & includes a forecast future inflation rate. Therefore, if you buy more early on & few late on, that price is lower than if you buy few early on & more late on. I think that's a silly notion, & it would be better to use constant-price numbers.

BTW, this is the F-35A. The F-35B & C will be more expensive.

Swerve

What you are saying his correct, but THAT number (to completion" cost, after low-rate initial production, of $80 mn flyaway) his meaningless.
The F-35A production was "caped" by the Congress and the USAF for 48 units a year. That means that the last of those 1763 "lightnings" will be delivered to the USAF in... 2043... Trying to calculate an APUC or an PUAC in that time frame his... well, impossible?!
The production can be doubled or tripled, of course, but what are the chances of the Pentagon budget getting a raise in the next few years? And what his the biggest Pentagon Program, and what are the chances of that program getting partly "axed"?

Cheers :)

Profile picture for user Sintra

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,765

$136.8 million, eh? Or $170.8 million for something usable. :D

BTW, the inflation rates assumed in those budget forecasts are here.

Table 10.1, "Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2013".

I think that after 2013 they assume a constant modest inflation rate.

Thanks ;)

That´s very useful information.

133 million?
Here you go, the exact numbers:
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/8559/f22la1.jpg

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204-081.pdf (page 55)

Cheers :)

Well, thats the price most often quoted for the Raptor and is very close to FY 08/09. I can only assume the price goes up as the Raptor nears the end of production. Of course more orders for the USAF or a possible export contract could change that? Regardless, the Raptor will never be close to the price of its cheaper cousin the F-35.:D

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 13,433

Well, thats the price most often quoted for the Raptor and is very close to FY 08/09. I can only assume the price goes up as the Raptor nears the end of production. Of course more orders for the USAF or a possible export contract could change that? Regardless, the Raptor will never be close to the price of its cheaper cousin the F-35.:D

Note that before FY 2007 the average flyaway price was $161.6 mn.

I think $133 million is probably the lowest price paid for a years production batch, maybe for 2006 (IIRC I read about then that for a few aircraft the price was something like $129 mn, but that price only held for about 3 months), but unfortunately some people have chosen to quote it endlessly as "the" price. Not really honest.

Profile picture for user Sintra

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,765

Well, thats the price most often quoted for the Raptor and is very close to FY 08/09. I can only assume the price goes up as the Raptor nears the end of production. Of course more orders for the USAF or a possible export contract could change that? Regardless, the Raptor will never be close to the price of its cheaper cousin the F-35.:D

Actually, Stephen Trimble from "Flight International" in his Blog "The Dew Line" made a direct quote from the USAF for exactly that situation, the cost of another batch of 20 Raptor´s being bought after the delivery of the entire 183 F-22 fleet.

F-22 = $220 million
You knew this would happen eventually: The F-22's program acquisition cost and its numerical designation are roughly in synch.

The US Air Force wants to extend the F-22 production line one year past its scheduled closure date at the end of fiscal year 2010.

I asked the USAF to tell me how much it would cost. One week later, the response is: $526 million in fiscal year 2009 and $3.892 billion in fiscal year 2010.

That adds up to $4.418 billion for 20 aircraft, or exactly $220.9 million per copy, including spares, overhead, etc.

I also think it's interesting that the F-22 and the C-17 each cost about $220 million.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/f22/

Cheers:)

Profile picture for user Sintra

Member for

12 years 3 months

Posts: 3,765

Note that before FY 2007 the average flyaway price was $161.6 mn.

I think $133 million is probably the lowest price paid for a years production batch, maybe for 2006 (IIRC I read about then that for a few aircraft the price was something like $129 mn, but that price only held for about 3 months), but unfortunately some people have chosen to quote it endlessly as "the" price. Not really honest.

You are correct, the average flyaway price for the entire fleet of Raptor´s was 154.267 Million US$, the 133 million$ never happened.

Swerve

What you are saying his correct, but THAT number (to completion" cost, after low-rate initial production, of $80 mn flyaway) his meaningless.
The F-35A production was "caped" by the Congress and the USAF for 48 units a year. That means that the last of those 1763 "lightnings" will be delivered to the USAF in... 2043... Trying to calculate an APUC or an PUAC in that time frame his... well, impossible?!
The production can be doubled or tripled, of course, but what are the chances of the Pentagon budget getting a raise in the next few years? And what his the biggest Pentagon Program, and what are the chances of that program getting partly "axed"?

Cheers :)

Personally, I would say the odds are very good that F-35 production will increase well over whats currently projected. As the USAF is retiring its F-16's at a rate of over 115 aircraft per year and everybody knows the problems surrounding the F-15 fleet. That doesn't even include the current issues with the USN Hornets or the USMC Harriers. As a matter of fact there is much talk in Congress of accelerating F-35 production. Maybe even opening up another production line in the UK? That of course is only the tip of the iceberg with many JSF Partners in a similar position! Then you have Non-JSF partners like Israel that want the F-35 like yesterday.............Sorry, but production for the Lightning will be backed up for years to come!

As for being "AXED" the odds are about as "NIL" as you can get! Why would the US surrender the largest fighter market since the 1950's. Especially, when its got it cornered!:diablo:

Actually, Stephen Trimble from "Flight International" in his Blog "The Dew Line" made a direct quote from the USAF for exactly that situation, the cost of another batch of 20 Raptor´s being bought after the delivery of the entire 183 F-22 fleet.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/f22/

Cheers:)

Which, is why the US Defense Dept just want to close down Raptor Production and move on to the Lightning.........As the Raptor is just eating up the defense budget!:(

Profile picture for user swerve

Member for

14 years 6 months

Posts: 13,433

.... As a matter of fact there is much talk in Congress of accelerating F-35 production. Maybe even opening up another production line in the UK? ...

That isn't up to the US congress. The British government won't pay for a UK production line, & BAe isn't interested (it prefers building some of every F-35 to assembling a few), so unless the US congress decides to vote the money for a new company to be set up, to buy the land, build a factory, pass a law to force Lockheed Martin to subcontract assembly of some aircraft to the new UK factory, etc . . . Somehow, I don't see it. :diablo:

There might, however, be a production line set up in Italy, as some Italian politicians want it, & Alenia is happy to do it as long as it's being paid.

That isn't up to the US congress. The British government won't pay for a UK production line, & BAe isn't interested (it prefers building some of every F-35 to assembling a few), so unless the US congress decides to vote the money for a new company to be set up, to buy the land, build a factory, pass a law to force Lockheed Martin to subcontract assembly of some aircraft to the new UK factory, etc . . . Somehow, I don't see it. :diablo:

There might, however, be a production line set up in Italy, as some Italian politicians want it, & Alenia is happy to do it as long as it's being paid.

Well, I may have to go back and do a little research. As I was sure that secondary production lines were planned for both the UK and Italy if the need arosed......................Which, is looking more likely by the day! Really, I don't see anyway possible for LM in Fort Worth, TX to keep up with demand! :D :D :D

Member for

11 years 9 months

Posts: 76

On 30 March 2006 Italy and the Netherlands signed the "IT/NL Production & Sustainment (P&S) MoU". That became effective on 7 Februari 2007 when the Netherlands and Italy signed the PSFD MoU.
On 13 June 2007 a new P&S MoU has been signed, with Norway as a new partner.
At the moment the countries are looking if Turkey can be the next addition.
And the MoU is designed to include other european countries.

The P&S MoU is about supporting the industries of the nations that signed it. It means that the participating countries will work together to get what each nation wants:
* assembly in Italy
* maintenance in the Netherlands
* sub-components maintenance in Norway

Companies from the 3 countries have already made deals with eachother after these MoU's were signed.

I guess the F-16 deal to work together on the european F-16's the (original) european owners have works well and they want to do the same thing for the F-35.

On 30 March 2006 Italy and the Netherlands signed the "IT/NL Production & Sustainment (P&S) MoU". That became effective on 7 Februari 2007 when the Netherlands and Italy signed the PSFD MoU.
On 13 June 2007 a new P&S MoU has been signed, with Norway as a new partner.
At the moment the countries are looking if Turkey can be the next addition.
And the MoU is designed to include other european countries.

The P&S MoU is about supporting the industries of the nations that signed it. It means that the participating countries will work together to get what each nation wants:
* assembly in Italy
* maintenance in the Netherlands
* sub-components maintenance in Norway

Companies from the 3 countries have already made deals with eachother after these MoU's were signed.

I guess the F-16 deal to work together on the european F-16's the (original) european owners have works well and they want to do the same thing for the F-35.

I remember reading something along those lines just a short while ago. Well, lets hope that it continues to progress.........:D

Member for

15 years 10 months

Posts: 343

Actually for the real prices/cost to the taxpayer - the interest on R&D cost has to be capitalised and then the total has to be divided over the airframes.

Though in the long run, fly away marginal unit cost will also have relevance

http://pic15.picturetrail.com/VOL621/3950639/8346282/312778494.jpg

Nice drawing but the lift fan doors don't look right???:rolleyes: